Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The Lau Seascape is a hot spot for species richness and endemism. Also has a high RSR.
Evidence B:Marine biodiversity of the Cook Islands is recognised as outstanding
Global analyses of marine biodiversity place the Lau archipelago among the highest priorities for conservation, as a hotspot for species richness
Lau has been declared a significant Marine Ecoregion as well as encompassing and Ecologically or Biologically Significant Area
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Although no data is available on the spatial resource, assumption is that it has high carbon value.
Evidence B:Very important for Blue carbon
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: The governance systems are mixed: local and central authorities. In the case of the Lau Islands, the Bose Vanua (Indigenous Chiefs) and the Provincial Council (government) play the most important role, and are made up of IPs.
Evidence B:project will strengthen shared cultural traditions and stewardship approaches between the Cook Islands and Fiji
Strong and effective systems of traditional leadership exist in both countries, reinforcing centuries of traditional ownership and management of land and marine resources
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The EoI emphasises the IP governance and management of resources rather than the cultural significance of the Lau Seascape to IPs - however, the Lau Islands contain many heritage sites and the project itself (as per the attachment) is designed to assist with cultural mapping of sites and of traditional knowledge. It’s clear that the area has important cultural significance, it’s just not well articulated in question 2.
Evidence B:Yes, the unique cultural significance is clearly explained and justified in the EoI
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The main threats are climate change, poor land use and unsustainable resource use. Lau has a very low level of tourism but government pressure may change this in the future.
Evidence B:The threats are clearly identified in the EoI and are at a high level. Threats include: climate change; unsustainable resoirce use; and economic development
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: The Lau Seascape is supported by the Fijian Government and line ministries are playing an active role to support the traditional chiefs to move forward with the initiative.
Evidence B:In both countries there are strong and effective policy conditions in place for IPLC led conservation. In Fiji, the Lau Seascape is a multi-partner collaborative initiative led by Lau traditional leaders. In the Cook islands the House of Ariki is the parliamentary body representing the interests of traditional owners and comprises Cook Islands High Chiefs
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: The Lau Seascape is part of Fiji’s voluntary commitments to SDG 14 at the UN Oceans Conference. The Provincial authorities and the Ministry of iTaukei affairs are supportive of the Lauan chiefs to proceed with the seascape.
Evidence B:National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation in this project, in both the Cook islands and Fiji
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: Three of the Lau islands have their own Yaubula Management Support teams in their villages and have also conducted mapping of their natural and cultural heritage. The seascape will build on this and also on the locally managed MPAs established in 2018 and 2020. These are not pilot projects but rather community and chiefly initiatives.
Evidence B:There are a number of existing and proposed IPLC projects in both areas and the EoI would build on a strong foundation of relevant initiatives
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: There are projects in both Fiji and the Cook Islands that are directly related to developing local marine custodianship with substantial co-financing. Two of these have already been awarded to the Lau Seascape and another large grant is pending approval.
Evidence B:There are a number of other initiatives providing complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in this EoI, in both the Cook islands and Fiji. Section 6 of the EoI outlines a number of complementary activities by partners and other organisations. Section 7 of the EoI outlines a number of sources of co-financing, both awarded and pending approval
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The listed activities are entirely aligned with the overall objective and the collaborative learning between Cook Islands and Fiji traditional authorities will provide an inspirational example for the Pacific and beyond.
Evidence B:The proposed approach is extremely well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI. Activities in Section 8 will enhance IPLC efforts to steward, protect and manage waters and lands within areas covered by the EoI in Fiji and the Cook islands.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The activities and outcomes are clearly listed and coherent.
Evidence B:The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The project will have a long lasting and provide the island chiefs and communities with the tools they need to accomplish their goals.
Evidence B:The project will make a major contribution. Many of the threats will require actions beyond the direct control of the Project proponents, although the mix of IPLC and Government involvement in this project will maximise chances of positive outcomes
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Yes, because the project also has additional financial support.
Evidence B:Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: The project already has donors and grant applications pending approval for large sums.
Evidence B:The EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing, as outlined in Section 7, in both Fiji and the Cook islands
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: The geographic areas put together (marine and land based) in both countries fit under the moderate category.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: This is covered in questions 8 and 9 in each of the 3 project outcomes.
Evidence B:The cultural and/or livelihood indicators, outlined in Section 13, are clearly relevant to and also logically derive from project goals
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The project, as designed, brings in all the relevant partners and has a long term and coherent vision. It covers education, provides management tools, brings in the churches and provides cultural and livelihood incentives and opportunities for the people of Lau.
Evidence B:Section 13 outlines a number of means for ensuring sustainability, including coastal fisheries improvements, building financial and governance systems as well as a rnage of other tools and products
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: Supports both Fiji and Cook Islands NBSAPs and NDCs.
Evidence B:The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities, in particular NBSAPs in both countries, and clearly links and anchors the project to those policies and priorities, in both the Cook Islands and Fiji
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The EoI indicates that those proposing it understand gender mainstreaming and that mainstreaming will be carried out through the activities.
Evidence B:The EoI outlines (in Section 15) a logical and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: The collaboration between the traditional authorities of Lau and the Cook Islands will provide a valuable example of IP collaboration. THe Lau Seascape is also replicable and will provide an example for other communities and islands in Fiji -
Evidence B:Exceptional demonstration potential, as a model for cooperation between IPLCs in both countries and also provides a model for trans-national cooperation between countries to promote IPLC conservation and initiatives
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: The initiative is led by the Bose Vanua o Lau in partnership with CI as the Bose is not autonomous and the Lau Provincial Council and the Bose do not have the project management capacity. There are a range of partners most of whom are run by IPs. This project will strengthen the IP local communities and the IP led NGOs.
Evidence B:The EoI is led by the Bose Vanua provincial Council in Fiji and the House of Ariki in the Cook islands. Other partners are identified
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The Bose Vanua has been working with local communities on natural and cultural heritage management for a long time and in collaboration with the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs and the Lau Provincial Council.
Evidence B:The EoI demonstrates on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work in both countries
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: The roles of all partners are listed but it is not clear what their role was in the design of the project.
Evidence B:Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO network. Both lead organisations are centrally involved in all aspects of the project
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: Because CI will be managing the financial aspects of the project and also having an advisory role, the technical capacity is there. The project also envisages that CI will build the capacity of the Bose and the House of Ariki for financial and project management as well as other youth and IP organisations in Fiji and Cook Islands.
Evidence B:The lead organisation and project partners have all the necessary skills to implement the project, in both countries
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: Yes, through CI’s involvement in project management.
Evidence B:All criteria met, with all agencies having strong past performance
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Yes, through CI’s involvement.
Evidence B:Yes, clearly justified, clear explanations provided in EoI